Allowing Bush an his ilk to call themselves “Conservative” or to argue over whether they are conservatives is a political mistake — because they are not

... would vote for the American Fascist Party's candidate? I mean, now that Jerry Falwell is dead? Well, shooter would, of course, but I was thinking more in terms of sentinent beings.

To Glenn and CO et al.

I wasn't arguing (or even trying to suggest) that the topic didn't bear repeating. I was only wondering if there was something that I had missed. I am firmly in favor of continuing to hammer the intellectually dishonest behavior of these people at every opportunity. The sad thing is that Glenn could more or less pull posts at random from the last year or two and they would still be applicable and in need of action: warrantless wiretapping, habeas corpus, military commissions, extraordinary rendition, torture, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, et cetera ad nauseam.

It is particularly nice to see these people hoist on their own petards with now and then quotations. This collection is almost as nice as comparing what they said about the war in Kosovo with what they said about the war in Iraq or what they said about impeaching Clinton for perjury and what they said about indicting Libby for perjury.

Repetition is the key to finally exposing this cabal for what it is. People may think that the truth only needs to be told once, but that was in the days of the fairness doctrine. When the truth is being battered by lies 24/7, it needs to be repeated as often as there are opportunities.

... it really must be pointed out that there was a movement among conservatives to disavow Bush even before the 2004 election. As Glenn pointed out in the article, it was ineffective and generally too little, too late, but it was there. See the article "Even Conservatives Are Wondering: Is Bush One of Us?" by Eyal Press in The Nation for May 31, 2004 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040531/press). Anyone who thinks no one saw this coming in 2004 should read this article.

Then there is the statement of principles by conservative Republicans who actively opposed Bush in the 2004 election (http://www.republicansforhumility.com/principles.html). The rest of the pages at this site make useful and interesting reading as well. The site seems to have been abandoned after the 2004 election.

The point is that there were and are honest conservatives who believe in things like individual liberty, a free society, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a foreign policy based upon both strength (while avoiding "nation building", overextension, or injudicious intervention around the world) and humility in dealing with our allies and other nations. The trouble is that that sounds exactly like what those who are opposed to the present regime want.

Karen M: Ironically, I think of myself as less of a prescriptivist, and more of a descriptivist, when it comes to language. For example, I wouldn't change a thing about bebop-o's posted comments. However, just as we all (would like to) expect a certain level of standards from journalists... some of us have similar expectations about the use of language.

But it is important to remember that language can not only be used to communicate ideas and intentions, but also to obscure them. And it is the latter use that those who do not want their intentions to be clear call up with greatest facility. Alexander Haig was a master at this. And speaking of Secretaries of State, I am much more concerned about Rice referring to the "Soviets" when speaking about the Russian objections to our missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic than about her using "task" as a verb.

But as someone who makes at least part of my living from nit-picking grammar, I am not about to cast aspersions. Besides, individuals who perforce are constrained to domicile in vitreous structures of patent frangibility should on no account employ petrous formations as projectiles.

For prunes: OK, I have no idea what you are objecting to, unless it's my use of the word "destroy." If so, uh, sorry, I guess.

At the risk of being accused of trying to read minds, I'll say that I suspect that this is precisely what LWM was objecting to.

An ideology is a mental contstruct with no physical existence. To this extent it is much like language or religion (the latter being in general more complex that the average ideology). The only way to "destroy" any of these is to destroy everyone who holds this particular mental construct. Once this is done, if there is no written record of the mental construct then it is destroyed — gone forever. If there are written records, these must also be destroyed or else the construct (ideology, language, religion) can be reconstucted.

Hence LWM's claim that calls to "destroy" an ideology can only be accomplished by the monstrous expedient of destroying everyone who holds this mental construct and all records of it. This is truly monstrous.

To LWM: Physicists can't even destroy matter easily.

Prunes is correct on this one. The Law of Conservation of Matter says that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. There is a corollary for energy known as the First Law of Thermodynamics that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. These two are tied together by the well-known equation E=mc²

You may now resume your squabble.